5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Zagórczyce.
6.  The applicant is married and has children. Prior to his application for an early-retirement pension he had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State.
7.  On 17 April 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension.
8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 28 March 2001. The certificate stated that his daughter A (born in 1989) suffered from epilepsy and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.
9.  On 18 May 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 April 2001 in the net amount of 676 Polish zlotys (PLN).
10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 30 June 2001 the applicant resigned from his full-time job in a filter manufacturing plant in Sedziszów where he had been working since 1982. On 1 July 2001 payment of the pension was resumed.
11.  On 16 July 2002 the Rzeszów SSB asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 3 September 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.
12.  On 6 September 2002 the Rzeszow SSB reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting him a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. On 18 September 2002 the Rzeszów SSB issued a decision by virtue of which the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued as of 1 October 2002.
13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.
14.  On 1 April 2003 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her father’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as he did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.
15.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.
16.  On 22 April 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.
17.  On 9 July 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant (decision served on the applicant on 26 July 2004).
18.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of his right to an early-retirement pension.
19.  The applicant submitted that since the date of the revocation of the EWK he remained unemployed.
20.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s wife was covered by the social insurance for farmers between 1977 and 1998. She was further awarded a periodic agricultural disability pension between October 1998 and October 2011. She owns a farm with an area of 1.80 physical hectares. The applicant’s daughter A. earned PLN 1,054 in 2009 and PLN 3,974 in 2010.
21.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation.
22.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2020.
23.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region.
24.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty-four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case.
25.  One hundred-and-four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty-one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.